Three years after October 7, Israel struggles to turn lessons into shared obligations - analysis

Three years after the October 7 massacre, Israel has absorbed shared security lessons but failed to translate them into shared obligations. The article examines divisions over Prime Minister Netanyahu, military service exemptions, and accountability. It argues that while broad agreement exists on security threats, the country remains split on who must bear the burden of defense and who must take responsibility for the failures that preceded the attack.

Three years after the October 7 massacre, Israel has absorbed shared security lessons but failed to translate them into shared obligations, according to this analysis by Herb Keinon. The article examines the country's fractured public life, visible during an election campaign, and argues that while broad agreement exists on the dangers facing the country, deep divisions remain over who must bear the burden of defense and who must take responsibility for the failures that preceded the attack. The piece notes that disagreements over commemorating the massacre—with separate official and civilian ceremonies—reflect deeper divisions over who should lead the mourning and what role the government should have. On security, the article argues there is considerable agreement: Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir's call for an assertive offensive posture finds support beyond the governing coalition, and skepticism toward Palestinian statehood is widespread. The divisions center on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who remains a fault line, and on two obligations: the duty to help protect the country through military service, and the duty to take responsibility when protection fails. The article questions whether reciprocal obligations between citizens and the state are being honored, noting that extraordinary sacrifices by some have become a substitute for participation by others. The nation will vote in three weeks.